Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses BM25 ranking and passage-level retrieval scope, which is useful beyond the name, but omits authentication, rate limits, and result-order details. Because an output schema exists, return format need not be covered here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any explanation of the 'k' parameter, though the output schema does cover return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'query' is the topic, but says nothing about the 'k' parameter, its default of 8, its allowed range, or its effect on results. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search), resource (DRACO's book library), method (BM25), and target (passages matching a topic). Clear about what it does, but does not differentiate from siblings draco_ask or draco_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. Unlike a strong definition that routes between siblings, it leaves the agent to infer that this is for topic search rather than asking questions or checking status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.